Blog Post #3

 Eight Values of Freedom

The first amendment protects our freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition as Americans. In other words, our freedom of expression. Scholars have developed eight speech theories to describe why that is so important to us: Marketplace of Ideas, Participation in Self-Government, Stable Change, Individual Self-Fulfillment, Check on Government Power, Promote Tolerance, Promote Innovation, and Protect Dissent.

One of the Values of Free Expression that caught my attention and I have seen used consistently today is number eight, Protect Dissent. It clearly states the fact we have the right to disagree with the government and everyone else. Our government cannot and should not use compelled affirmation of belief to force us to believe anything. How are we supposed to spark change if we do not have the right to address issues and weigh in on them? I love how it reads that it is our “patriotic duty to criticize the government.” Once old enough to vote, taking part in an election comes with the responsibility to educate oneself and make a decision on where one stands with certain policies or decisions made for our country. Our country will never be perfect and will always involve disagreement, but it can be better if we allow everyone the right to disagree and encourage modification when necessary.

In Steve Shiffrin’s Dissent, Injustice and the Meanings of America, he discusses the benefits of encouraging young people and all who can, to challenge what injustice they may see. His “dissent-based” approach involves the invitation to open more criticism towards the wealthy and powerful so we can avoid unjust public debate and “loosening the grip of commercial interests on the media.” I find this to be an interesting point. Adoption of the media has given all who choose to utilize it, a platform to share their thoughts with a large audience. Among the thousands of ads and posts, it can be hard to see the information one may actually be interested in or benefit from. While all are free to choose how they want to use the various social platforms available, it can be easy to become distracted from what their original and sole purpose is: to share information. Instagram was created so people could post memories from their life and share that with the people important to them. Now it is a place of online shopping, influencers, scammers, etc. It can feel exhausting to be on the app because ideas, products, and lifestyles are constantly being pushed into your view. It has led to the issue of how online influence can be abused by some and used to dampen other’s freedom to express themselves. A similar concept can be discussed regarding another speech theory.

While I believe theory six, Promote Tolerance, is very important, it can be taken to the extreme by today’s public and cause people to lose sight of the fact we all have the right to disagree with everyone. After all, if no one disagreed, (a highly unlikely instance), there would be no use for the first amendment. Social media has given the masses the power to take down all who they disagree with. If someone shares their opinion online, they are at risk of being shunned and ostracized due to the backlash from “cancel culture.”

For example, in April of 2023 at a basketball game, two women were criticized for making fun of a woman in the background of a video she posted on TikTok. A New York Post article reported on their response in which they admitted their actions were wrong and should have handled the situation better, but explained they felt extremely uncomfortable being videoed for around 5-10 minutes and were receiving terrible messages from strangers on the internet. Yes, bullying should not be condoned, but did their choice to act somewhat inappropriately towards the woman deserve the subsequent punishment of hundreds of death threats?

Even the woman who had shared the video posted a reply to the situation explaining all she wanted was an in person apology, which she received, and didn’t approve of the online harassment towards the two women. People questioned if it had turned into the illegal action of doxing: searching for and publishing private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent. It’s interesting to me how a use of a freedom can turn into an unlawful action. If that is now a common occurrence and outcome of people trying to create norms, as stated in theory six, maybe that freedom needs to be more clearly outlined.